About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
, the first appearance was with judge marianne boulder and she was there to review his miranda rights with him, among other things. you've been hearing a lot about miranda rights. there's issue at play here that need to be clarified. we're going to read a couple of the things said from the hearing. we have the transcript. the judge said, quoting here, you have been charged with one use of a weapon often mass destruction and malicious destruction of property resulting in death. the case is being prosecuted in part by william weinreb. the maximum penalty on each count is death or imprisonment for any terms of years, or life. and there was this finding from the judge, and this one is important. quote, i find that the defendant is alert, mentally competent, and lucid. he is aware of the nature of the proceedings. okay? so that is the basis for the discussion. joined by retired superior court judge isaac borenstein in boston. he's done hospital visits over his 22 years as a judge. let us begin with the idea, confusion and frustration about miranda rights. give them right away, if you don't give the
given all that's transpired over the last week. >> he was not read his miranda rights which a lot of people are talking about today. explain the reason why. >> well, in the law there's what they have called a public safety exception to miranda. everybody knows what miranda is. you have the right to remain silent. anything you say can and will be used against you. the police don't have to say that to you if they are in hot pursuit of something relating to public safety. maybe worried about bombs in this case. they're worried about another plot or something else happening. so under those circumstances authorities do not have to give the miranda warning immediately to a suspect. a lot of people out there saying on the right that they ought not give miranda rights or any other kinds of rights to people who are deemed terrorists. people on the left saying you ought to use the regular court to try to try these individuals. this is an ongoing debate about the law in this country. >> let's talk about the penalty that the younger suspect may face. we're still waiting for charges to be file
be read his miranda rights. moving past the politics of it because it seems to get a little poe lit kal, as a former member of fbi how does whether or not the suspect is read his miranda rights influence or impact your investigation? >> it really becomes irrelevant. good report-based interviewers and interrogators who are the ones most effective. the fbi doesn't do that because we're nice. we do that because it worked. in reported based interviewers miranda they can read that and continue. it is not a major obstacle. it is almost irrelevant. jenna: really? we're hearing a it is a major issue whether we get to the bottom of this investigation. so what should we consider as we continue to hear the debate ongoing over the next several days? >> it doesn't, it really doesn't make that much difference to the interviewers and especially the particular group of profile he is -- profilers they developed at quantico, at the fbi academy. this is not terribly relevant. they can sit down with the people. they can interview them. they look for behavioral cues. they look for a way to establish a relat
not get his miranda rights. >> among of group of republicans calling for the boston bombing suspect to be considered an enemy combatant. that means he would not have the same constitutional protection as a regular citizen, with regard to what he says as the investigation moves forward. will this happen? california congressman, a senior member of the intelligence committee. congressman, always good to see you. i know that you disagree with the congressman and think that the suspect is in custody. is entitled to his miranda rights. why? >> well, i think the administration is handling it exactly correct. there is a public safety exception under the miranda allowing law enforcement to interview him, making sure there are no other bombs, threats, perpetrators still out there giving the law enforcement flexibility to do the that prior to miranda and i think the court will interpret it broadly and give them the time they need to make sure that the public is safe. after that, he will have to be mirandized, doesn't mean the end of cooperation, but no basis yet to conclude they should be trea
administration has agreed to delay a reading of his miranda rights under a public safety exemption, secretary of defense chuck hagel has not seen evidence to link the bombings to terror groups. scrutiny turns to the fbi who reportedly questioned the older brother tamerlan in 2011 at the request of a foreign government. this is so interesting. of russia. the fbi told the a.p. despite interviewing him and relatives they did not find any activity. the agency dropped the ball. richard, i wonder if there is going to be a lot of questions and maybe even hearings out of this or what comes to mind just knowing those basic facts? >> there probably will be hearings of the fbi whether it learned more or could have done more. critics say that is monday morning quarterbacking. it ought to be about what we were talking about, what can we do to prevent or identify young people who are radicalized and how did we respond and how what did we learn about lockdowns. as the military would say it ought not to just focus on fbi. it's much bigger and much broader. we have to learn a lot from this. the reason is this
, let me come over to you, a lot of talk about miranda. but give me a sense of what the leeway is especially in situations like this, after acts like what happened here at the marathon. >> well, it is yesterday's news. he's been given his miranda warnings and probably anything he said without his miranda warnings is not going to be needed by the government or the prosecution. remember, they did not indict him as a terrorist, that's very important. they indicted him as an ordinary murderer, anybody who wants to kill their mother-in-law, business partner and makes an improvised explosive device and kills them is just as guilty under the statute indicted as osama bin laden might be. this is not a terrorist prosecution. they don't have to prove intent to terrorize, intent to intimidate. they can prove their case just through the videotapes. now, i predict there are going to be two types of possible defenses in this case. number one, the jihad defense. i did it, i'm proud, i'm happy, please kill me, i want to join my brother in paradise. i'm a martyr. the other, my brother made me d
? rather you walk through a miranda warning, someone has a chance to step back, what's this about an attorney? what's this about a right to remain silence? you need to protect the public. you need that information. >> do you believe that young man h y to facthat pelt >> given the nathese crimes, i would say the answer to that is yes. >> the city of boston is angry, justifiably. and that anger is unlikely to dissipate very quickly. so, can he get a fair trial in that city? >> very difficult to move a trial. the legal standard essentially no jury in this city will be able to look fairly on this evidence. very high standard. i believe he will face trial in boston. >> michael garcia, thank you. appreciate it. >> thank you. >>> as investigators peer deeply into the lives of the bombing suspect, they will look at what happened in a remote and dangerous part of russia, visited not long ago by the older brother. he apparently came back a changed man. and abc's kirit radia is there tonight. >> reporter: last year, tamerlan traveled here, to dagestan, a region home to an islamist uprising.
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)